Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21301389›Full record

Trial reportSexually transmitted diseases2011

Clinical evaluation of the BD ProbeTec™ Chlamydia trachomatis Qx amplified DNA assay on the BD Viper™ system with XTR™ technology.

Stephanie N Taylor, Barbara Van Der Pol, Rebecca Lillis, Edward W Hook, William Lebar, Thomas Davis, Deanna Fuller, Leandro Mena, Paul Fine, Charlotte A Gaydos and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. German evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the management of penile urethritis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Seroprevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Among Female Adults in the United States: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Diagnostic Molecular Microbiology: A 2018 Snapshot.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2018
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Diagnostic molecular microbiology: a 2013 snapshot.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2013
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie N TaylorLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Section of Infectious Diseases, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Barbara Van Der Pol
Rebecca Lillis
Edward W Hook
William Lebar
Thomas Davis
Deanna Fuller
Leandro Mena
Paul Fine
Charlotte A Gaydos
David H Martin
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USSidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital · USIndiana University Bloomington · USIndiana University School of MedicineJohns Hopkins University · USMichigan Medicine · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Mississippi · US

Funding

TrainingU54EB007958 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Susan Anne Tuddenham · 2007 to 2026
$34.6M
HIV Prevention Trials Network: Network LaboratoryU01AI068613 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ESHLEMAN, SUSAN H · 2006 to 2010
$16.5M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI068613NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB007958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study evaluated the performance of the BD ProbeTec Chlamydia trachomatis Q (CTQ) Amplified DNA Assay on the BD Viper System with XTR Technology in a multicenter study.

methodsSpecimens were collected at 7 geographically diverse clinical sites from 1538 women and men attending sexually transmitted disease, family planning, and obstetrics and gynecology clinics. There were 1465 evaluable participants, 993 women and 472 men. CTQ assay results from female endocervical, self-collected vaginal, male urethral swab specimens, and male and female neat (unpreserved) urine specimens as well as those obtained using the Urine Preservative Transport (UPT) tube for the CTQ assay were compared with patient-infected status (PIS). PIS was determined based on the combined results from Aptima Combo 2 and BD ProbeTec ET CT Amplified DNA Assay.

resultsThe sensitivity versus PIS for endocervical, vaginal, and both female urine samples was 91.3%, 96.5%, and 93.0%, respectively. The specificity for the same specimen types was 98.3%, 99.2%, and 99.4% (urine neat) and 99.2% (UPT), respectively. The sensitivity versus PIS for male urethral swabs and both male neat and UPT urine were 92.1% and 98%, respectively, with specificities of 98.4%, 99.2%, and 98.1%, respectively.

conclusionsThe CTQ assay demonstrated performance characteristics comparable with other commercially available nucleic acid-based tests such as Aptima Combo 2 and BD ProbeTec ET CT-Amplified DNA assay. Vaginal swabs and male urine specimens, the sample types recommended by the Centers for Disease Control for chlamydia screening, both performed at least as well as other sample types evaluated.

Indexed as

Cervix UteriChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisDNA, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingUrethraUrineVaginaDNA, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21301389
PMCPMC3763498
OpenAlexW1967808598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.